A narrow Yes win came out of a debate where hardly anyone defended secrecy for its own sake: both sides said they wanted full facts, and split over whether announcing them at the point of charge helps or harms.
The most-respected Yes case was blunt: nationality, ethnicity and biological sex are all relevant data that should always be released. Behind it sat a pragmatic claim, that “Honesty (and accuracy) must prevail” because disinformation and speculation fill any gap. Several Yes voters pointed to selective disclosure, one calling the current practice “farcical at the moment”, and argued for all suspects or none.
The two most-respected No arguments were questions rather than statements: why divulge it at all, and what is the point, given it stirs up hatred and a witch hunt against whole groups. Other No voters were less absolute. One accepted that full details must be recorded but objected to misleading statements, and another proposed that “The stats should be published in aggregate, not for specific offences”.
That shared ground is the story. Yes and No voters both attacked inconsistency and suspicion of a cover-up, echoing the argument over trust in police that followed the 2024 Southport disorder. They differed on timing and form: a charge announcement or a later statistical release.
The disagreement was less over whether the facts should exist than over when the public should be told them.
77 Opinions
Nationality, ethnicity, biological sex, etc. are all relevant data that should always be released.
Why though? Is there any point? Every time, without fail, that the police mention nationality or ethnicity it starts yet another witch hunt for entire groups and ignoring that there are bad actors in every group, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc etc.
Why is it necessary to divulge this information? It just stirs up more hatred in the world.
Yes, because disinformation and speculation will always fill the gap. Honesty (and accuracy) must prevail
No. It's not always going to be relevant. But full correct details must be recorded. And they shouldn't be allowed to gaslight the public and deceive them either. With statements referring to someone as a "a local British man" when they know full well they have immigrated here, or trying to kid on that someone who has just butchered some school girls is a Welsh choirboy, when it is totally untrue. All in the name of community cohesion.
I voted yes because maybe if the right wing blowhards saw that the vast majority of all crimes are committed by white, straight men they might start to moderate their hostility to minorities.
The stats should be published in aggregate, not for specific offences
The problem is when there is a perception of a link between nationality/ethnicity and likelihood to commit crime. The only way to remove that perception is by recording and making data available that shows no such link. We often say if you're not guilty, you've nothing to hide. Failing to record and make that data available looks too much like you're hiding something. That reinforces the perception of bias or favour towards some nationalities or ethnicities. Edited
Given the extensive release of charge details about the 2024 rioters, apparently intended as a deterrent, perhaps this should become standard practice. Speculation cannot be prevented. It can start from a known set of facts rather than prejudiced assumptions, as it does now. If apparent patterns emerge, the government should engage with them using facts and figures, not suppress debate. Edited
Yes. Nationally and immigration status may or may not be directly relevant to a crime. Both are directly relevant to the flight risk and suitability for bail.